Search Forums

If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Well, I just meant in terms of strategy. Which do you think is more rhetorically effective, proposing a counterexample (and arguing about it) or pointing out that their side hasn't adequately supported its argument? I feel like giving a concrete example that the debate can focus around makes it easier to talk about, but finding the right kind of example can be difficult; you can't just have an example that assumes what you're trying to prove (that's my problem with FSM).

No, I don't think you understood what he said. I think that you have no idea what he meant. I don't think you even understand what it means to read someone else's ideas without applying your own assumptions--whether they are epistemological, ethical, or metaphysical. It would be like saying, "Plato wouldn't believe in Forms if he knew science!" Missing the entire f'ing point.

I did read the quote. Have you read Kierkegaard? Do you know why he said what he said in the quote? Your reaction seems like a kneejerk Empiricist response. I doubt you've taken the time to understand what Kierkegaard has to say--you just know that you don't like it. Here's a test: before you criticize a person's position, you should be able to give their argument in your own words to their satisfaction.

There's a certain principle that goes something like this: a young man was walking around the fields of England one day and came to a stone wall seemingly in the middle of nowhere, and the young man began asking around for permission to tear it down, since he judged that it had no purpose. Older, wiser men cautioned him against tearing down the wall until he understood why it was put up in the first place.